Too Many


Years ago, I began to feel, as a whole, that we, the over socialized sect of human existence, had hit a creative plateau, and not because we were at our end, but because this redundancy was supposed to act as an indicator that we had reached a threshold of expressive culmination. It was only the end as we knew it – a type of collective denial.

I didn’t have the language for it at the time, so I would refer to it as existing within a computer simulation. I would test my theory by challenging peers to fathom an original idea or invention for a hypothetical science fiction scenario. I avidly pointed out that any result they could possibly procure was one which had already been conceptualized. Everything already exists, even if only just in theory. The idea was that nothing original could be created within a controlled or prefabricated reality. That is when I concluded that all modern and postmodern innovation must be birthed out of an already existing artifact – a sort of implosion of culture.

The emergence of the “movie remake” (and sometimes even the remake of the remake) phenomena that took over the entertainment industry is what first made me aware that we are not only living in a disposable society, but one that values and actively encourages the copy of a copy, despite degeneration of value or meaning. I realized that most commercialized art and punch-lined humor is so mass received as a result of its origins being in some reference to a facet of popular culture.

For all of the reasons that I loved this video and found it to be unprecedentedly entertaining, are the same reasons that its implications did disdain me. To produce something so unilinearly fashioned and verbally inexplicable that is so overtly and universally understood and received, in itself, proves to be a very dark, yet successful socio-psychological experiment.

New art – these hyperreal combinations should be conventionally confusing, yet we are capable of having specific emotional switches flipped at the site or sound of a familiar trigger. It’s frightening and equally intriguing that we can get a majority of a demographic to identically emote and relate based upon a repetitive and conditioned narrative, through a medium executed in a way that does not meet any standards of cognitive reasoning, other than within its own point of reference.

As Jean Baudrillard said, “It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: A hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory – precession of simulacra – that engenders the territory.”

Reply to a Philosopher


In response to Ken Vallario‘s “The Frame Problem”. View it and then read the text here:

I just spent what man might consider a religious experience in nature.

Nature.. the most beautiful, chaotic, symmetrical, geometrical, powerful work of art to ever exist. The source that inspires art, and yet, never once did I see nature confined or framed, outside of the names and classifications that man has given to it.

Once again, a fellow philosopher and friend has identified for me another cultural trap of hidden symbolic dualities in the “frame”… a further representation of how man conformed to one standard of presenting his work – detached; the frame representing borders, like those invisible lines in the sand separating nations.

It is herein that the idea is challenged, or perhaps asked, as to how deep it may run, of just how unaware we might be of how extreme our conditioning goes or how far our allegiance with our standards and beliefs have gone.

It wasn’t taking authorship… framing… defining… separating… labeling… differentiating, that sides were created to defend. The need to be a critic, automatically predisposes us to be forced to think about what we are feeling about what we are seeing, and then taking that feeling and translating it into the limiting confines of a manmade medium to define something that is define-less… frameless… : ART.